Jack Andrews and his wife no longer enjoy what they call date night, their once-a-month outing to the movies and a steak dinner at Logan’s Roadhouse in Augusta, Ga. In Harlem, Eddie Phillips’s life insurance payment will have to wait a few more weeks. And Jessica Price is buying cheaper food near her home in Orlando, Fla., even though she worries it may not be as healthy.

Like millions of other Americans, they are feeling the bite from the sharp increase in payroll taxes that took effect at the beginning of January. There are growing signs that the broader economy is suffering, too.

Chain-store sales have weakened over the course of the month. And two surveys released last week suggested that consumer confidence was eroding, especially among lower-income Americans.

While these data points are preliminary — more detailed statistics on retail sales and other trends will not be available until later this month — at street level, the pain from the expiration of a two-percentage-point break in Social Security taxes in 2011 and 2012 is plain to see.

“You got to stretch what you got,” said Mr. Phillips, 51, a front-desk clerk and maintenance man for a nonprofit housing group who earned $22,000 last year. “That little $20 or $30 affects you, especially if you’re just making enough money to stay above water.” So he has taken to juggling bills, skipping a payment on one this month and another next month.

“I’m playing catch-up each month,” he said. “You go to the supermarket and you can’t spend what you used to.”

Jack Andrews has it slightly better than Mr. Phillips. He earns a bit more than $40,000 a year manufacturing ceramics in a local factory, but because his wife, Cindy, is disabled, he is the sole breadwinner. Something had to give now that he is earning about $800 less a year, or $66 a month, and it was the couple’s monthly night out.

“It’s just gotten out of reach,” Mr. Andrews said.

The tax break, which was pushed by the White House to stimulate spending in 2011 and extended in 2012, was always supposed to be temporary. But with pressure building in Washington to reduce the deficit and politicians fighting bitterly over whether to raise taxes on the very rich, the question of how the increase in Social Security taxes would affect the poorest workers did not seem to garner much debate on either side of the aisle.

“I don’t see any reason to consider supporting its extension,” said Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, in testimony last year. Even Nancy Pelosi, a reliable liberal who leads the Democratic minority in the House of Representatives, was for letting it expire.

The higher rate applies to all earned income up to $113,700. For a household earning $100,000 a year, the two-percentage-point increase means an additional $2,000 a year in payroll deductions. Economists estimate that the payroll tax increase will reduce disposable income by about $120 billion and shave half a percentage point from economic growth in the first quarter — a significant blow given that the economy is expected to expand only 1 to 2 percent in the first half of 2013.

“If you wanted to design a policy to squeeze the spending of lower- and middle-income households, raising the payroll tax is the way to do it,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomic Advisors. “It’s very regressive.”

“I wouldn’t expect it to have much of an effect on BMW consumption,” said Richard H. Thaler, a professor of behavioral science and economics at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. “The people who will notice it the most are the ones making the least.”

In Medford, Ore., Darchelle Skipwith had to scrap her monthly budget and start over when the law changed.

She is buying less meat; driving less often to see her sister, who lives 12 miles away in Eagle Point; and putting less away in savings. In August, Ms. Skipwith, 42, hopes to get a raise of 50 cents an hour at her job stacking shelves at Walmart, which should help make up the difference.

For now, she has no choice but to change her daily routine.

“I added it up — it’s about $75 a month,” Ms. Skipwith said. “That’s not a lot for some people, but mine is the only paycheck. I don’t have extra money coming in.”

Wow you wingnuts certainly have a knack for self-delusion and rewriting history.

Clinton camapaigned on welfare reform and was the driving force behind it's passage.

[QUOTE]

Cliinton to his credit did support some mild welfare reform. However, he TWICE vetoed GOP sponsored welfare reform bills, under pressure from the usual liberal groups...he was under pressure to sign welfare reform, it was hurting the Democrats...

Even when he signed welfare reform, he was critical of the very provisions which ended up being the most effective...

Nonetheless, Clinton and Gingrich BOTH deserve credit, that was my point.

Obama signed a compromise bill, he OWNS it.. his defenders cant pick and choose the provisions, saying the mean old Republicans made him do it.

Come on Guys, Dont you know Obama is never at fault for ANYTHING. He's Only the President Of the United States. When Something Is Indefensible Its somebody elses fault, Get with the Proggressive Program. Jeez. Obama is too busy Giving Your money To the "Poor people" To take any blame for stuff anyways.

You guys are unbelievable. Nobody with a brain can believe this horse-sh1t. Obama wanted the tax holiday extended - it was included in the stimulus you railed against. You're blaming the guy because he didn't fight your ideas hard enough?

Come on Guys, Dont you know Obama is never at fault for ANYTHING. He's Only the President Of the United States. When Something Is Indefensible Its somebody elses fault, Get with the Proggressive Program. Jeez. Obama is too busy Giving Your money To the "Poor people" To take any blame for stuff anyways.

Reductio ad absurdum

Straw man logical fallacy

Well done.

"Now the Republicans are walking away from lower- and middle-income families because they don't want to impose a small, small tax on the wealthiest people."

Come on Guys, Dont you know Obama is never at fault for ANYTHING. He's Only the President Of the United States. When Something Is Indefensible Its somebody elses fault, Get with the Proggressive Program. Jeez. Obama is too busy Giving Your money To the "Poor people" To take any blame for stuff anyways.

Come on Guys, Dont you know the Republicans are never at fault for ANYTHING. They only have the power to block any legislation they want, preventing from coming before the President Of the United States. When Something Is Indefensible Its Obama's fault, Get with the Proggressive Program. Jeez. Republicans are too busy preventing Your money from being used to help "Poor people" To take any blame for stuff anyways.

(And what's with all the capitalization ???)

Its what happens when you have two parties with child like selfish vindictive mentalities running the country and they would rather rule over the ruins that do the right thing!!

Its not repub fault, dems fault or obama's fault. It's the fault of them all and a voter base that will defend thier ideological party and blame the other without thought.

47% will blame repubs, 47% will blame dems. obama and the rest of the politicians depend on the sheep/voters not to change